<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic zhpgvx and zhegvx in Intel® oneAPI Math Kernel Library</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/zhpgvx-and-zhegvx/m-p/875146#M8845</link>
    <description>Dear MKL developers!&lt;BR /&gt;Seems like this two important subroutines zhpgvx and zhegvx are not multi-threaded. Is this true? I run a couple &lt;BR /&gt;of tests for different OMP_NUM_THREADS and got no performance impact. (The same test for zgemm works fine and I get nice scaling with increasing of the number of threads).&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Cheers,&lt;BR /&gt;Anton.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Update: zhegvx scales, but not perfectly (that was my error during the tests). I get double speed on 4 cores comparing with serial version. But zhpgvx doesn't scale.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:47:16 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>toxa81</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2008-06-11T17:47:16Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>zhpgvx and zhegvx</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/zhpgvx-and-zhegvx/m-p/875146#M8845</link>
      <description>Dear MKL developers!&lt;BR /&gt;Seems like this two important subroutines zhpgvx and zhegvx are not multi-threaded. Is this true? I run a couple &lt;BR /&gt;of tests for different OMP_NUM_THREADS and got no performance impact. (The same test for zgemm works fine and I get nice scaling with increasing of the number of threads).&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Cheers,&lt;BR /&gt;Anton.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Update: zhegvx scales, but not perfectly (that was my error during the tests). I get double speed on 4 cores comparing with serial version. But zhpgvx doesn't scale.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:47:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/zhpgvx-and-zhegvx/m-p/875146#M8845</guid>
      <dc:creator>toxa81</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-11T17:47:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: zhpgvx and zhegvx</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/zhpgvx-and-zhegvx/m-p/875147#M8846</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Anton,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;it's rather difficult to get a perfect speed-up for zhegvx, so double speed on 4 cores is OK for this routine. zhpgvx is poor scaled indeed (almost no scaling), it can be improved. &lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Actually, we recommend to use unpacked storage routines rather than packed ones (like zhegvx instead of zhpgvx) for better performance if you have enough memory to allocate the whole matrix.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thank you for paying attention to the MKL scaling issues.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Michael.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:32:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/zhpgvx-and-zhegvx/m-p/875147#M8846</guid>
      <dc:creator>Michael_C_Intel4</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-18T15:32:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

